Sacramento daily record-union., 1887-08-12

tered the private Office, Assistant
Postmaster Leake said to him: % Ed,
have done you favor many times, and
| want you to do the same for me-" Then
Leake said that q number of letters had
been found in the storeroom, and asked
him if he had left them there. Kennedy
replied that he had not, but on thinking
the matter over he remembered the letters
he had left there the previous October and
told Leake about them. The Assistant
Postmaster told him to write out state
ment about 1t. Kennedy sat down and
wrote, Leake leaning over his back and
telling HIM what 10 write. The statement
was n eonfes sion that he had taken letters
directed to Weinstock & Lubin from their
DRIVER, and had placed them in the store
room. Leake told him that nobody would
know about the case except the Postmaster
and Weinstock & Luhin, and that he would
not tell witness father about the, matter
Kennedy positively denied the truth of his
written confession, and also denied that ne
had ever opened any letters.
Witness said he did not know what vol
untary meant at that time, nor does be
know now. He simply complied with Mr.
Leake's request and did as directed The
statement was not read in my presence,
and Mr. McManus did not see me write or
sign it, and he did not witness it while
was there. ] asked Mr. Leake what time it
was, and he said, lone o'clock; now scoot
to work, and / left. When writing that
statement for Mr.. Leake I said l did not
take them out OF the drawer, and he said,
"Oh, put thatin anyway L never opened a
letter at any time, and those l left in the
back room did not exceed twelve or thir-
teen.
A juryman asked On the day you wrote
that letter did you go to the Postoffice vol
unfairly, or were you sent for?
Witness replied that Mr.. Leake had met
him on the street and said By the way,
Ed. have plenty of work at the Postoffice
and would like to have you call and see
me in the evening" Witness called twice,
but did not find Mr. Leake in. His mother
one day told me that Mr.. Leake wanted to
see me, and called as stated
His cross-examination was very lengthy,
but witness stood very closely to the testi-
mony given in his direct examination.
DR.. M. Gardner was next placed upon
the stand by the prosecution, to testify to
the reputation of Mr. Leake. Witness said
he was pract;cing physician in the city of
Sacramento. He had known Mr.. Leake
for II or Is years. He knew his general
reputation and it was good.
Mr.. McElrath, counsel for defense, said
" Doctor, you never heard Mr.. Leake's
character discussed, did you?"
Z" No, sir"
Mr.. McElrath-That will do.
The Court-True character is never dis
cussed. The fact that a man lives in a
community with another for wears and
never hears his character discussed is eyi-
dence of good character. When a mans
character is discussed, that of itself is eyi-
dence that ii is smirched
4. G. Hart was next called He said be
was City Attorney of Sacramento. He
knew Mr.. Leake to be most reputable cit.
lzen. He said few evenings ago he was
in Harry CANDLES saloon with several par.
ties, and he was smarting under ruling
made by the members ofthe court-martial
in-which he and his brother were counsel
for the defendant. Mr.. Leake was one oil
the Court Board. He at that time
was of the opinion that the Board had ex-
ceeded their authority, and denied his cli-
ent rights to which he at that time sup
posed he was entitled, and he denounced
the action of the Board as an outrage and
disgrace. Mr.. Sheehan, OF the Bee, Joined
me in the discussion, and Mr.. Leake's
name was mentioned in connection
with it. Mr.. Sheehan expressed himself
in unequivocal terms, and when / said
Them's my sentiments" it was impulsive
and said with disgust. | cOul not recall
what Mr.. Sheehan said on that occasion
to-day, until he refreshed my memory since
came down here to day. never heard his
character discussed except upon that occa-
sion. Mr.. Leake associates with The best
citizens in Sacramento.
Joseph Steffens, of the firm of Whittier,
Fuller & Co., in Sacramento. said Mr..
Leake's reputation was good in the com :
munity in which he resided; he never
heard it discussed.
A. A. Van Voorhies, leading merchant
in Sacramento, had known Mr. Leake since
the latter first came to Sacramento. His
reputation was good: he never heard il
discussed.
General II. l. Wiley said he had known
Mr.. Leake for many years. Knew his
reputation. 1t was first-class. II was never
questioned.
Z. Eppinger, a leading merchant OF
Dixon, had known Mr.. Leake for many
years. His reputation was good.
NJ. s. Curry, of Solano, a leading citizen,
said he had known w. s. Leake for fifteen
years. His reputation was first-class.
Joseph Hahn, Sacramento merchant,
said he knew Mr.. Leake intimately his
reputation was good: he never heard il
questioned.
J. II. Miller, of Sacramento, said he never
heard Mr.. Leake's character discussed. His
reputation was good.
Mr.. McElrath-Are you the John Miller
who is reporting this case Tor the RECORD
UNION?
" Yes. SIR
did you write the proceedings of this
trial that appear in to-day's issue of the
RECORD USIoN?"
Yes. SIR
You and Mr.. Sheehan, of the Bee, are
not very good friends, are you ~
Yes, sir. We are friends"
" Let me read something TO you from
this evenings Post, headed A Sacramento
Sensation The inhabitants of the beau
tiful village of Sacramento are soon to be
treated to a genuine sensation in the shape
OF fisticutf between John Sheehan, one OF
the editors of the Bee, and John Miller, the
reporter of the RECORD UNION. Sheehan
will be the aggressor. The difficulty origi-
mates in an insinuation in the columns OF
the RECORD UNION this morning that
Sheehan was roue and q sucker Is that
true Mr. Miller?''
"No, sir. l never used any such Ian
guage, or anything that could be construed
to mean anything like it 2"
$. Let me read little more: Miller, in
his report. improved the opportunity TO
make some exceedingly offensive state
ments aboIt Mr.. Sheehan's character, and
when copy of the RECORD UNION reached
the city to-day, his wrath knew no bounds
He met the writer in the upper hall of the
Appraisers building and there admins
tered severe tongue castigation in the
presence of large crowd Is that true p
No, sir; not one word of all you have
read is true. We have had no alteration.
"a = r. IT. II
minutes ago Mr.. Sheehan came to my desk
and whispered to me that / had slurred
him. and demanded 9 retraction in the
piper. / asked him how / had slurrsd
MIN, and he left me with threat"
Alter few unimportant questions and
answers, after making the above denials,
the witness was excused.
w. w. Davidson, one of the attorneys